Does it swing???

Message

Greg Avakian · #16 Post by **Greg Avakian** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:39 pm

Yeah, I niavely thought that DJs would like to put some more energy into this topic and actually cite examples and geeky stuff like that...

GemZombie · #17 Post by **GemZombie** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:54 pm

Greg Avakian wrote:Yeah, I niavely thought that DJs would like to put some more energy into this topic and actually cite examples and geeky stuff like that...

Nope, cuz I'll just get accused of boxing all music in sub-genre's and having a closed mind.

It's easier to just shut up this time:)

CafeSavoy · #18 Post by **CafeSavoy** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:51 pm

hahaha...in his own words....

Lawrence · #19 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:57 pm

First, I distinguish between swing rhythm and swing music. Swing rhythm exists in much more than just swing music: it's perhaps the most common rhythm in all of American music: rock, country, etc.... I interpret any comment that something "swings" as either 1) poking sarcastic fun at swing geeks or 2) that the music uses swing rhythm.

Second, as for defining Swing Rhythm, I don't get into all the swinging eighths lingo because nobody knows what I mean (including myself) and I'm definitely a dancer before I'm a musician, and I explain things in terms that non-musicians (including most dancers) can understand.

There are two crucial elements to swing rhythm as I define it. First, an even-keeled pulse on a 4/4 rhythm, whether manifested by a walking bass line, a drum/cymbal line, a walking bass line on the piano, or a combination of the three so that, for instance, the bass hits on 1 & 3 and the drum hits on 2 & 4 so as to create an even-keeled, pulsing rhythm. Second, the use of triplet rhythms that we manifest into syncopated triple steps when dancing: not "bat-bat-bat," but "bat... ba-bat, bat... ba-bat, bat... ba-bat."

Thus, Stevie Ray Vaughn's "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is 12-bar blues in 4/4, but it lacks any syncopation ("bat... ba-bat") in the rhythm, so it does not swing. But Basie's "Sent for You Yesterday" (straight 12-Bar Blues with a few transition phrases) "swings."

Swing Music refers to a genre of music that creates a certain "sound" akin to Swing Era Jazz: similar harmonic structures, chord progressions, with a swing rhythm.

Ron · #20 Post by **Ron** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:46 pm

Well said, Lawrence.

D Nice · #21 Post by **D Nice** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:41 pm

Kyle wrote:"Rhythmic Displacement"

that is how i have heard it defined, and i think those two words are all that you need. it leaves out everything else. it leaves out genre, style, technique, taste, etc.....

The problem is that you exclude songs that have rhythmic displacement... part of the defining elements of jazz is that the instruments which are not part of the rhythmic section can and do create rhythms.

In a battle of bands this was illustrated by one musician after another in the rhythm section getting up and leaving the bandstand until it was just the horns left, swinging the hell out of the song, and rhythmic as all get out.

Needless to say the crowd went crazy, the other band acknowledged defeat, and it proves once again that taking a narrowly defined view of something invariably means you exclude perfectly valid examples.

Latin Jazz songs have as much and often times a much greater sense of rhythmic displacement than commonly accepted traditional big band swing songs.

mark0tz · #22 Post by **mark0tz** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:11 pm

Chick Webb swung the Savoy Ballroom as Lindy Hop was getting started. It would be impossible for anyone to put up much of an argument stating that his music didn't and still doesn't swing.

However, I go to the record store, buy a good Chick Webb Album (wish there were more), and maybe half of the songs (a good percentage for us DJ's really) are ones I'd want to play at a dance. The rest are Ballads, slower-tempo'd swing numbers (Dear Christ not something from that era less than 130bpm!), or don't quite have that feel.

Is this an accurate depiction of what they played at the Savoy Ballroom? Or is it just in their repertoire for when they actually recorded. Of course Chick Webb wasn't able to record nearly as much as we all would have liked him to -- so I don't feel we have a very complete/accurate depiction of him and his music.

I guess my question is this: At the Savoy Ballroom, did he ever play any of the songs on this CD (or other CD's) that don't swing, are really slow in tempo, or the dancers of today would reject? If he did in fact play that stuff, did they do ballroom to the ballads? Did they lindy to the slow swinging numbers 100-140?

Lawrence · #23 Post by **Lawrence** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:02 pm

Is this an accurate depiction of what they played at the Savoy Ballroom? Or is it just in their repertoire for when they actually recorded. Of course Chick Webb wasn't able to record nearly as much as we all would have liked him to -- so I don't feel we have a very complete/accurate depiction of him and his music

That question is a bit off topic, but, according to Frankie Manning and George Reed, they did dance to much slower stuff in live shows than what was sold commercially: much like today. Frankie also noted that the Whitey Lindy Hopper film clips were fast because they were choreographed. They did not dance that fast socially at the Savoy.

Mr Awesomer · #24 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:02 am

Lawrence wrote:they did dance to much slower stuff in live shows than what was sold commercially

Actually, all that slow stuff was sold commercially as well. Didn't you read how he talked about all the ballads and slow songs on the albums he bought?

Lawrence wrote:They did not dance that fast socially at the Savoy.

So you're saying they just sat all those fast numbers out? hahaha. (I have a number of "live at the savoy" type recordings)

I think you're misquoting... and quite badly.

Mr Awesomer · #25 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:10 am

mark0tz wrote:I guess my question is this: At the Savoy Ballroom, did he ever play any of the songs on this CD (or other CD's) that don't swing, are really slow in tempo, or the dancers of today would reject?

Yes

mark0tz wrote:If he did in fact play that stuff, did they do ballroom to the ballads? Did they lindy to the slow swinging numbers 100-140?

Most attendees had other dances to choose from depending on what was being played.

mark0tz · #26 Post by **mark0tz** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:52 am

Lawrence wrote:That question is a bit off topic, but, ...

Thanks for your response Lawrence (and yours Reuben). I guess the deep-seeded/unspoken question was is this "swing music" and/or "does it swing"? I know it was a little rhetorical, but I was just trying to expand upon the initial question with an example...

Lawrence · #27 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:49 pm

I guess the deep-seeded/unspoken question was is this "swing music" and/or "does it swing"? I know it was a little rhetorical, but I was just trying to expand upon the initial question with an example...

In answer to that question, tempo does not determine whether something "swings," although at some slower tempoes the real audible "swinging effect" desired by a swing rhythm is undermined, just as at some extremely fast tempoes the syncopation ("bat... ba-bat") in the rhythm is lost and it ends up just being bap-bap-bap-bap-bap-bap.

Some of the early Chick Webb recordings I would label as "pre-swing" because there is not a true "swinging" feeling between beats: not just because of the tempo but because of the way the beat way still being "slammed" out. However, it is difficult to generalize because the recordings span over several years, not just a month at a single session. Chick Webb's orchestra definitely did "swing," though, in the bulk of its recordings.

Lawrence wrote:
They did not dance that fast socially at the Savoy.

So you're saying they just sat all those fast numbers out? hahaha. (I have a number of "live at the savoy" type recordings)

I think you're misquoting... and quite badly.

Rueben, I am not misquoting. The fact that the answer does not fit your preferences does not make it any more or less accurate. I have "a number" of those recordings, as well, and they also reflect my comments. "Jumping at Woodside" was the rare, really-fast song. The tempos of other songs ranged well under 200 BPM.

Many people who were "there" have clearly and unequivocally told me and others (in written interviews or accounts) that the average tempo at dances was not as fast as the 210-260 BPM Swing Era recordings for much the same reason that people prefer those slower, mid-tempos today: little more than professional dancers doing choreographed routines could dance all night to fast music; passive, casual, improvisational dancers who were in mediocre physical shape preferred and needed the slower tunes.

I also meant that they GENERALLY did not dance to music as fast as the recordings; they of course did not sit out all the fast songs. And, as with all generalizations, there are exceptions. They probably had ebbs and flows in what was popular for dancing, and warring factions, just like we do. People who once preferred slow stuff probably got bored with it and changed their preferences, and people who once preferred fast stuff opened their eyes, too, and developed a passion for slower dancing.

There is also a lot of hidden, recorded, "mid-tempo," non-ballad material from the Swing Era out there reflecting what was played at dances. (You probably know that more than anyone, Rueben.) Nonetheless, according to Frankie, George Reed, and others, the majority of the recorded popular stuff in the Swing Era was at tempos that exceeded what dancers wanted even then. Those recordings were for listening, not for dancing. They did not conceive of victrolas and early record players being capable of providing sound at dances; they needed the big bands to fill auditoriums and ballrooms with sound. They also had to fit the entire song in under three minutes. So they did not record songs as they would play them at dances; they sped the tempo up.

Lawrence · #28 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 3:14 pm

Rueben, I also noticed from your "Tribute to the Savoy" playlist that you only played 20 out of 65 songs over 200 BPM, with many songs down to 110 BPM.

I wish I would have been there to hear it. Sounds like an interesting set.

Mr Awesomer · #29 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 3:23 pm

You say you have a number of live at the Savoy recordings, yet you seem to fail to comprehend that all the fast tempo songs you are hearing on said recordings were played live at the Savoy.

Furthermore, I just knocked YOUR statement of "They did not dance that fast socially at the Savoy" as being completely false... and it is completely false as there is bth audio and visual documentation of plenty of uptempo SOCIAL dancing.

Mr Awesomer · #30 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 3:26 pm

Lawrence wrote:Rueben, I also noticed from your "Tribute to the Savoy" playlist that you only played 20 out of 65 songs over 200 BPM, with many songs down to 110 BPM.

Yeah, that slow stuff that you thought wasn't sold commercially.

And you see, I never said that tempos weren't diverse at the Savoy... so quit reading things into my posts.